March 7, 2013

“It took a lot of thought to come to this conclusion, but I’ve decided to step back as the artist on this story. The media surrounding this story reached the point where it took away from the actual work, and that’s something I wasn’t comfortable with.”...

An online petition calling for DC to remove [Card] from the book has more than 16,000 signers. Comics Alliance has a series of interviews with retailers, including one who will not offer the book when it becomes available in print and another who will donate proceeds to the Human Rights Campaign.

Chris Sprouse is a talented artist and it's not surprising that he's chosen to distance himself from this radioactive project. It is, however, surprising that DC continues to stand by Card, whose very public bigotry and anti-gay activism remain at odds with the publisher's attempts to engage their fans in the LGBT community.

And:

Fans' anger over Card's views are now threatening promotions of the filmed adaptation of his sci-fi novel Ender's Game, which hits theaters in November and will star Harrison Ford.

Get ready. This is the future, unfortunately. Anyone who doesn't adapt and embrace same-sex marriage will be treated as the equivalent of a racist. You can say: What about freedom of expression? But that is freedom of expression.

In a statement, DC Comics said, “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

Some views are better than others. If you don't have the "right" view, you will be labeled a bigot and hounded McCarthy style.

Traditional religious society cannot survive this assault, Althouse. The Russians and Islamists are willing to go to war to defend themselves. Are you prepared to fight a global war over this issue? For less than 3% of the population?

We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.

The Great Bigot Hunt has become a paranoid delusion. Witness the Oberlin College phantom KKK sighting generated by a Diversity department agitating for more funding.

Exactly. I think Sprouse's move is entirely defensible. He's investing his own time and creativity in the project. He should make the call. If Sprouse had made the exact opposite decision -- if he had issued some kind of statement to the effect of "I don't agree with Card, but he's a talented writer and this is an artistic project, not a political one" -- that would have been defensible one as well.

The petitions, protests, and retailer timidity is less attractive -- not because such actions aren't defensible -- but because the pivot from individual choice to groupthink is always unattractive.

But some perspective here. Do you think the LBGT (and silent Q) protests against Ender's Game will be bigger than Catholic protests against Life of Brian or The Last Temptation of Christ?

You can say: What about freedom of expression? But that is freedom of expression.

That's true, and that is fine, but let's not lose sight of the goal of that expression. That expression is not in service of anything other than limiting other expression. There is no nobility in that.

But (according to the article) he's politically active against ssm. Those who are campaigning against him are making a point of that. It's not just someone who is sticking to his religion's precepts and keeping it to himself for the most part, maybe admitting his beliefs if asked.

"Card is a board member of the National Organisation for Marriage, a group at the forefront of the fight against same-sex marriage in the US. He has called being gay "a reproductive dysfunction" and once suggested people would rise up and overthrow any government that supported gay marriage."

Freedom of Religion - Based on this type of 'event', combined with Obamacare's rules on providing birth control drugs, its appears that Freedom of Religion will only be allowed insofar as the majority of the public agrees with and approved of your religious tenants. All other religous positions will not be tolerated by the v. tolerant left.

This, of course, only applies to Christians and Jews. Muslims are OK to believe and practice any religious point they like. In fact, the teacher's union will likely teach it in schools, to promost tolerance, of course.

In a statement, DC Comics said, “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

Good for DC Comics.

There's a certain irony here, that I'm sure old-time comics artists and publishers are well aware of. It wasn't so long ago that comics themselves -- the entire genre -- were pilloried by middlebrow dogoodniks.

-- No. DC Comics is who they are trying to intimidate. Card could stop working now and no one would care. The point is to get Card publicly humiliated by having DC yank the rug out from under him; it's the same reason protestors went to bank owners' homes to scare their kids. It isn't about changing the person's mind, it is about degrading and defeating them completely and utterly.

I don't care who produces art; if Superman is acting like Superman, we won't even know who the author was if there hadn't been a big stink about it.

Freedom of Religion will only be allowed insofar as the majority of the public agrees with and approved of your religious tenants.

But that's been true since Reynolds, hasn't it?

(And Employment Division v. Smith, thanks to a very short sighted line of reasoning by Scalia.)

But that's not the issue. The issue is access to and legitimacy in the democratic forum.

It is little solace and very little equality to keep reassuring religionists that they have free speech and freedoms under the First Amendment, but still make them eat at separate lunch counters, use separate bathrooms, and force them to sit in the back of the every proverbial bus.

Nothing is going to insure that gays will never be treated as equal as the actions of the Rainbow Mafia.

I support government gay marriage, but I am not at all supportive of the movement, which seems to consist mostly of bullying and encouraging judicial activism.

I'm going more the opposite. I, personally, have no concerns about gay marriage --- but its advocates are such loathesome shits that I will root for it to fail if only to throw mud in their faces.

But some perspective here. Do you think the LBGT (and silent Q) protests against Ender's Game will be bigger than Catholic protests against Life of Brian or The Last Temptation of Christ?

The press will treat their protests far more seriously than they treated the Catholic protests.

But (according to the article) he's politically active against ssm. Those who are campaigning against him are making a point of that. It's not just someone who is sticking to his religion's precepts and keeping it to himself for the most part, maybe admitting his beliefs if asked.

...so they're saying that blacklisting was a GOOD thing? Hard to keep up with this ever-changing story.

It's not like there weren't a lot of Communists in government and Hollywood.

Why do I have to know a person's sexual orientation or politics at all ever? I don't want to know. I don't care. Can't I just enjoy my waffle in peace?

Because gays are blaming you about feeling guilt for what they do.

They can't or won't accept the fact that the guilt emanates from within themselves. They've bought the doofus theory that the guilt is imposed on them and that it will disappear if they force the rest of us to "like them."

This is a campaign organised in large measure by people who despise the institution of heterosexual marriage, dismiss it as slavery and the family unit as a tyranny, and hate the church even more. They want not to join but to dismantle, and in recruiting the sincere and the sensitive to their campaign they are guilty of a far greater cynicism than I am for daring to make the point. Noisy campaigns piss me off. I can’t help it. And they retard progress, because they alienate. So I will not be marched into this, only reasoned.

I have no problem with someone deciding themself to not associate with someone else because they disagree with them--that if freedom of expression and association. I do not think it is freedom of association or expression, and is in fact that opposite of those, for you to be forced to not associate with a person because others disagree with his/her views.

MayBee, I agree. When they're talking all mushy about love and commitment and raising kids together, it sounds great to most people. This thought-police stuff turns people off....doesn't it? I can't be the only one who immediately thinks, "Go fuck yourself, fascist" in response to people who want to tell me what I can and can't think and speak about.

Let's get the pedantry out of the way first. The word marriage doesn’t just mean the joining of two entities. It means the joining of two different entities. Two entities defined by their difference from each other, with the aim of creating a third entity from the act of synthesis. In the field of ideas, for instance, we might talk about some new scientific theory that marries one account of the universe with another partially contradictory account, to produce a third and better version. Darwinism was married to Mendelian genetics to create the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, because Darwin proposed a vague and unsatisfactory mechanics of heredity. Mendelism contradicted his suggestions, but Neo-Darwinism marries the two ideas to produce a synthesis that best reflects reality in a way that is preferable to each account taken individually, without denying the vital contribution of either. In the sphere of human relationships marriage means uniting a man and a woman with the presumed end of producing children. Why? Why should it? Because that’s what the word means. I’m very sorry; I wish it were otherwise, if for no other reason than for putting this enormously tiresome argument to bed. But it ain't. I’m all for every single legal right and responsibility being conferred on homosexual partnerships same as heterosexual ones. But ‘marriage’ in this context means joining a man to a woman. I’m not saying that’s what God wants, that the alternative is a sin, or that homosexuals should be ashamed of their true natures. None of those things I believe. I’m saying that’s what the actual word means. It’s pretty basic. You can join, unite, splice or combine two of anything, including two of the same thing. But you can only marry two different things. That’s why it’s a different word, to distinguish itself from the others. Now, doubtless this is all very interesting to a linguist. In the field of equal rights, however, it doesn’t matter a damn. We have two different words for men and women, we even have different words for male and female homosexuals. It disadvantages none to have two different terms for heterosexual and homosexual partnerships. Not actually calling it 'marriage' is not some mean trick to deny gay couples one last vestige of equality. Marriage is not a unique right, it’s merely a unique word. And what it means is the union of a man and a woman. If, for whatever reason, a gay man married a lesbian, that would be a marriage. (It would also be one hell of a reception.)

I have no problem with someone deciding themself to not associate with someone else because they disagree with them--that if freedom of expression and association. I do not think it is freedom of association or expression, and is in fact that opposite of those, for you to be forced to not associate with a person because others disagree with his/her views.

"I do not think it is freedom of association or expression, and is in fact that opposite of those, for you to be forced to not associate with a person because others disagree with his/her views"

-- No one is being forced; pressured is the right word here (unless someone snuck into the guy's house with a gun or something, but that did not happen.) It's important to pick the right words for this or it just becomes two groups using hot, overblown rhetoric.

Frankly, protesting is -fine- if it is done legally and without violence, even if I find making a big fuss about most things unseemly. I'd rather we all discuss it over tea or something.

Exactly. And then if you belong to a mainline church that does not accept homosexuality as both normal and admirable you will be the equivalent of a racist. And then.... And then....

So shame the "normal" but do not allow the shaming of, say, fathers who knock up dozens of women or women who have babies by multiple now-vanished fathers. No "shame" there because that is bad shame, not the good shame that advances homosexuality.

I do have a problem with promiscuity, with sexual excess, senseless sex, sex as consumer choice, and with a popular culture that forces us to confront our sexual selves every second of the day, in everything we see and everything we hear, and as impetus and decider of every decision we make. I like the idea of our sexual natures being private and mysterious, and something we seek to contain rather than exaggerate. It makes sex sexier, for one thing. And if the consequence of that is the old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon prudery we are told is not merely foolish but actually dangerous, well I can't say I have any great problem with that. I like reticence and sobriety. I like to see the sexual arena governed by rules and rituals. And as for there being danger in repression, the evidence, it seems to me, points in the opposite direction. I think it is reasonable to draw conclusions, and negative conclusions at that, of any society that progresses knowingly from a repressed attitude towards sex to an incontinently libertine one, and what's more that considers itself capable of defending the transition intellectually and morally. I've heard all the arguments about personal freedom and the tragedy of lives lived in denial of the right to instantly chase each passing desire down the rabbit hole of sexual obsession. I find them dubious psychologically, and ludicrous in their pretence of rationalising an obvious Darwinian con trick.

Now read it all--http://venerablebeads.blogspot.com/2013/03/gay-marriage-not-all-that-interested.html

Jensen told the Kelso-Longview Ministerial Association last month that such prayers were not acceptable because they could expose the city to a lawsuit, The Daily News reported Tuesday.

“It’s not my choice to stop this, but I don’t know how we can put our citizens at jeopardy and cost our city and our citizens a lot of money,” said Jensen, who met with the association upon the advice of the city attorney.

If they can’t speak the name Jesus Christ, association ministers will no longer provide the invocation, said President Mark Schmutz, pastor of Northlake Baptist Church. He called the development sad and disappointing.

“They’re asking us not to do what we’re (called) to do,” he said. “This is the one and only true God, and so we’re not trying to be against anybody — we’re just being clear about what we’re for.”

A Christian invocation has started Longview City Council meetings since the 1950s. There was no invocation at last Thursday’s meeting.

The invocation complaint was lodged by Longview resident Dan L. Smith, 69, who describes himself as a “very comfortable atheist.”

A plot line in "Ender's Game" relates to two children adopting online personas in order to influence politics. One takes strong right-wing views and the other takes strong left-wing views in a coordinated plan to make one of the kids a political force. There's a part of the book where the little girl hears her father approvingly quoting her own, fake, right-wing views and is secretly ashamed of her father.

The book was published in 1985 and the original short story in 1977 - well before the internet. And I guess Card got over his aversion to right-wing ideology as he got older. Either that or he's playing with everyone just like Demosthenes.

Look on the bright side: This means that we'll never be subjected to another film treatment of the horrors of the Hollywood blacklist, when artists lost their jobs because of intimidation because others within their own profession sought to kowtow to political leaders.

Sometimes I crack myself up.

But wouldn't it be nice if someone could note the obvious parallel and that if the Hollywood Blacklist was A Bad Thing, this is also A Bad Thing?

Really the only well known superhero with a sizable gay fanbase (as a percentage of the general readership) is Wonder Woman. For some odd reason gay comic book fans seem to love the character.

Incidentally her series are well known for selling poorly and getting canceled. Frankly it was widely understood by comic fans that for a good amount of time her solo titles were merely done so as to maintain the character rights (much like the original F4 movie).

I'm a Mormon. Card's views are pretty hard line. I dislike his rhetoric. But I chalk that up to Card's personality. He's probably on the autism spectrum if we're going to be completely honest, so I don't think he expresses grey very well in dealing with people.

I'm a Mormon. Card's views are pretty hard line. I dislike his rhetoric. But I chalk that up to Card's personality. He's probably on the autism spectrum if we're going to be completely honest, so I don't think he expresses grey very well in dealing with people.

I'm a Mormon. Card's views are pretty hard line. I dislike his rhetoric. But I chalk that up to Card's personality. He's probably on the autism spectrum if we're going to be completely honest, so I don't think he expresses grey very well in dealing with people.

"Traditional religious society cannot survive this assault, Althouse. The Russians and Islamists are willing to go to war to defend themselves. Are you prepared to fight a global war over this issue? For less than 3% of the population?"

This is a battle not worth fighting, because the traditionalists have already lost the fight over the "institution of holy matrimony." The gays are seizing something that had already been thrown into the trash heap by Western civilization.

And before you ask, I'm fine with studios refusing to hire communists as well. Private enterprises should be able to hire and fire who they like. Let the consumer decide if they'll continue as patrons.

I'll object if the govt. gets involved but until then I'll just counter this stupidity by buying the comic.

Henry-I'd say a big part of it is how close the protest action is to what is being protested.

Protesting outside a place of business about the business seems reasonable. (Although I personally hate protests). Protesting a state that has laws prohibiting your from doing your business seems reasonable

But protesting someone's ability to make a living because they have a belief that has nothing to do with their work seems overreaching. There's no association between the point of protest and the place of protest.

Darrell wrote :In the sphere of human relationships marriage means uniting a man and a woman with the presumed end of producing children.Why? Why should it?Because that’s what the word means. I’m very sorry; I wish it were otherwise, if for no other reason than for putting this enormously tiresome argument to bed. But it ain't.I’m all for every single legal right and responsibility being conferred on homosexual partnerships same as heterosexual ones. But ‘marriage’ in this context means joining a man to a woman. I’m not saying that’s what God wants, that the alternative is a sin, or that homosexuals should be ashamed of their true natures. None of those things I believe. I’m saying that’s what the actual word means. It’s pretty basic. You can join, unite, splice or combine two of anything, including two of the same thing. But you can only marry two different things. That’s why it’s a different word, to distinguish itself from the others.

Yes! And for admitting that marriage means something and so can't include gays because definitionally they don't fit the definition means you are hateful bigot who should lose his job and be shamed in public.For pointing out what is true now, and has been true forever. And which was not a controversial position to hold until some activists got it into their system that the normative position suddenly meant bigotry of the highest order.

Because the people and the government back then eventually used the laws and the courts to shut down BY's family structures on religious moral grounds and you think it was fine, but you now decry any hint that someone else might do the very same thing if done against your currently favorite minority.

This is the cognitive dissonance of the SSM crowd that they refuse to address, because there is no reasonable argument, other than "because I said so, Bigot. STFU!". And their political water carriers in the media will not bring this up.

If it is reasonable and legal to outlaw what the Mormons call a marital relationship, gays really have no leg to stand on, legally. That means they might have to rely on the goodwill of folks that might be their allies, if they weren't acting like fascist Brown Shirt towards their opposition.

The next frontier the sex weirdos are pushing is Tranny "rights", which will actually mean deference to the political desires of trannies, and they are using the school system, which is friendly territory, as the battelfield.

Yes I am using provocative and insulting language because, while I support an equality solution thru civil unions, I condemn and despise the McCarthyite tactics of the leftist gay asshole community and think they should get some more of the treatment they say is so hurtful, unless it is Gays doing it to people that disagree with their leftwing politics.

I am hoping that the USSC upholds CA's Prop 8, just to watch the Gay Fascists heads explode. Their hatreds deserve that sort of karma.

I don't have a problem with the artist dropping out. Knowing that he did so I would Refuse to work with him for being an asshole and acting like a Brownshirt (if I were writing for DC comics that is).And he looks like a pretty decent artist. But I would have no I Teresa in the drama associated with Chris Sprouse. He would be like the Jesus freak always telling me to come to Jesus. Just as annoying. Not someone I would care to work with.

For a fuller picture of Card's views on homosexuality, go to this link at the Association for Mormon Arts and Letters. http://blog.mormonletters.org/?p=5890 There you'll find a discussion of his views in the context of excerpts from his work and other writing.

For a fuller picture of Card's views on homosexuality, go to this link at the Association for Mormon Arts and Letters. http://blog.mormonletters.org/?p=5890 There you'll find a discussion of his views in the context of excerpts from his work and other writing.

There are a lot of positions that I find deplorable, but I've worked with said people. I find Truthers odious, yet I've worked with plenty of them.I find liberals to be generally odious, especially when they bring their Obama worship or anti Bush rhetoric to work with them.I've never advocated them being fired, or refused to work with them.maybe I should start acting like a little sissy and start trying to get people in trouble for expressing their views around me. Only, I'm not a sissy and can coexist with people I don't agree with. Chris sprouse is a sissy.

The Gay Left and the Left, in general, would gladly overthrow the government to get their way, if they perceived they had the numbers. They tell us and show us all the time how much they despise dissent and the 2nd Amendment.

Go to SFGate dot com and peruse any article about "gay rights". You will find no other articles where opposition expressed in the comments section to their demands more heavily censored and ordinary diagreement blacklisted and removed from the site as "hate speech".

If anti-gay marriage folks were to act like gay rights folks, there would be no visible gay marriage movement left, other than what was driven back into the closet.

This just might be the moment the gay marriage lobby jumps the shark.---------or not...

you gonna overthrow the gov't too, wyo. maybe take care of them gays 'by whatever means is made possible or necessary'...

scary stuff.*************

How does saying jump the shark equal overthrowing the government or the implication of violence? (I guess that's what you're getting at.)

Talk about wackadoodle!

Let the gay marriage lobby protest and quit the project and get it cancelled or whatever they can figure out to do, but let them be aware that just because they choose to exercise their free speech rights doesn't mean mine are off the table.

This is the future, unfortunately. Anyone who doesn't adapt and embrace same-sex marriage will be treated as the equivalent of a racist.

Agreed, Thoughtcrime is here.

Further the issue will normalize societal enforcement against thoughtcrime, and thus it will be expanded to all other leftist policy preferences. 100 years from now people will be blackballed for claiming society would be better off if taxes were lower or that race preferences are wrong and violate the constitution - not just in leftist controlled industries like media, government & NGO employment, and academia (where this already happens) but everywhere.

Meanwhile employment will routinely exceed 10%, economic growth will be near zero, and population will be falling. We won't care about these things though, because they will simply be the norm. This is the path we've chosen.

Why do discussions of natural principles devolve into arguments over religion? Are evolutionary principles no longer in vogue? Or were they merely entertained when deemed useful to club people over the head.

In any case, the greater threat to evolutionary fitness is the normalization of premeditated murder -- for reason of preserving wealth or welfare -- or general devaluation of human life.

The tragedy is that women, and men, who desire liberty without accountability find common cause (including normalization of dysfunctional behaviors) with each other when similarly motivated. It seems the common cause is material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification.

On a side-note, Professor Volokh seems to believe that normalization of some dysfunctional behaviors will not engender normalization of others due to an instinctual or indoctrinated resistance by a majority of the population.

Personally, I think that promises to fulfill dreams of material, physical, and ego instant gratification will overcome men and women's semblance of integrity and firm embrace of reality. Still, it's worth a try to exploit the association he identifies.

To that end, in the absence of objective standards, in the interest of equal protection, in the interest of social justice, men and women who desire a relationship should not be prevented on the grounds of incest, pedophilia, numerical distributions, etc. In fact, as we dispense with the inconvenience of evolutionary principles and a common standard of morality, it is no longer prescient or justified to oppose other unproductive or counterproductive relationships, including inter-species.

Why do men and women who engage in homosexual behavior or others who prefer the convenience of premeditated murder oppose bestiality? How could they possibly deny the love between a man or woman and some animal with an appropriately accommodating receptacle. That is simple discrimination. On what grounds do they oppose this coupling?

In any case, let's make this departure from reality an all or nothing proposition.

This delusional gay marriage crapola led me to begin reading a book I'd long planned to read, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

Paid off. In the intro:

We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.

The Great Bigot Hunt has become a paranoid delusion. Witness the Oberlin College phantom KKK sighting generated by a Diversity department agitating for more funding

It's a form of mass hysteria, one that leftists have succumbed to in their entirety of their ideology. Look at every canard they have and you see the that it is centered on mass hysteria. In short leftists are mentally unstable people.

Ann Althouse said..."Card is a Mormon and his views are just consistent with that."

But (according to the article) he's politically active against ssm. Those who are campaigning against him are making a point of that. It's not just someone who is sticking to his religion's precepts and keeping it to himself for the most part, maybe admitting his beliefs if asked.

==================Wasn't that the problem with the liberal and progressive Jewish Communists on the original Blacklist, Ann?

They weren't just quiet little Communists.They were politically active, attending meetings to support Stalin, eliminate thought considered deviant by Moscow. They were to help the Sovient Union by recruiting, gaining control of the Writers Union. They were to penetrate other organisations like SAG, help organise Negroes.They agreed at Party meetings to pressure the Jewish studio bosses to not only avoid avoid hiring incorrect thinking writers, but pressure the Moguls to not hire actors and directors that had displayed undue love of Capitalism, Facism, Racism against the Negro.

They were not quiet little communists. They were politically active ones. And visible. And after the Jewish A-Bomb espionage rings, the FBI was tasked to not just look for Jews loyal to the Soviet Union delivering military secrets to them , but spies and agents in other spheres - those influencing foreign policy, those attempting to propagandize the masses in Russia's favor.

Just think of the Gay Mafia pushing "The Agenda" as a modern day HUAC. And all it's "agents of change and intimidation" as a pack of cross-dressing J Edgar Hoovers.

dbp said...Orson Scott Card is against SSM and willing to work with Chris Sprouse who is for SSM. Chris Sprouse will not work with OSC because of his beliefs.

The person who is an intolerant bigot is clearly Chris Sprouse.

Bigotry is not synonymous with disapproval. OSC clearly disapproves of the redefinition of marriage that the SSM advocates want, not SS relationships. He further makes it very clear that the issue is judicial activism trumping the majority's resistance against redefining marriage.

Anthony said...Well, heck, all Card has to do is advocate killing American or Israeli soldiers and he'll be A-OK again. ==============Hollywood, being what it is, has made plenty of anti-American films. Even a few that glorified killing American soldiers.I defy you to name an anti-Israeli film made in Hollywood.

Actors and directors generally know "the rules" there to get work. Part of those rules, as the LA Times states, is you best not bash Israel in any forum. Clapping through 4 hours of a Castro speech is fine, supporting "Muslim terrorist rights not to be persecuted or tortured" is fine, supporting gay fascist threats against Americans with traditional values - fine.

Outside Hollywood though, we have a wierd mix...lots of Israel bashers..but also a healthy compliment of low-educated Christian Zionist goobers. Who think it is their patriotic and religious duty to support Israel and it's policies.

And if you do not support this one foreign country, somehow, as opposed to other nations we have defense treaties with and have shed blood on the same battlefield - you hate Sweet Baby Jeebus and are unpatriotic. (And likely believe evolution is real as well)...

For fuck's sake. If there is a gay gene, then that statement is exactly right. A gene has been passed to you, through reproductive sex, that causes you to not want to reproduce. Why is it bigotry to refer to that as a "reproductive dysfunction"? Are gay people reproducers now?

My own view is that human sexuality is very mysterious. Freud spent his entire career thinking about human sexuality. We still don't know a lot of stuff about it. We don't know why people feel the way they do. Is it chemistry? Is it biology? What about free will? We don't know.

But what we do know is that straight people reproduce and pass genes to offspring. Bisexuals reproduce and pass genes to offspring. And gay people do not reproduce, and do not pass genes to offspring.

This is like the Catholic church going after Galileo. The so-called "secular left" is attacking science, and logic, and truth. Darwin is tossed out the window, like Freud before him. There can be no biological difference!

Why not? Because it blows their little minds. Liberals are so used to chanting "equality," they don't know how babies are made anymore.

I understand now that the EEOC is about to make a person's criminal record can not be used to discriminate against employment. Yet, here we have people who seem quite excited about destroying a person's ability to make money based on their non-politically correct ideas.

It seems strange, and wrong.

Consider the law has made it so one cannot discriminate against sexual orientation in renting, here in CA. You, your housing is protected, and now you intend to stifle people's livelihood to conform to accepting your lifestyle.

But (according to the article) he's politically active against ssm. Those who are campaigning against him are making a point of that. It's not just someone who is sticking to his religion's precepts and keeping it to himself for the most part, maybe admitting his beliefs if asked.

So the new standard is that if you have a belief against SSM you need to keep it to yourself or be attacked and your employment will disappear. At least in the politically correct precincts of Hollywood.

This is just the first step. The next will be the demand that you can not have that belief in you religious doctrine. Just another step in the attack on private religious belief.

The demand that SSM be performed in churches or Mormon Temples or Orthodox synagogues is next. The only religion that will be exempt will of course be the Muslims.

Get ready. It is coming to a church or temple near you in the very near future.

Orson Scott Card is much better off he doesn't participate in the Superman Project.

Let's face it. Superman is gay. I mean he treats Lois Lane like her vagina is dripping Kryptonite. Plus he sends to much time with the Jimmy Olsen. What's up with that. In fact all superheros are gay. Well except for Iron Man. Tony Stark gets a lot of pussy. I mean if you run around in tights and spandex you gotta be light in the loafers.

Now on the other hand, when a Supervillian wears spandex and fashion forward purple silk mask it is merely a fashion statement. Super Villians have style. Just sayn'

Baron Zemo, you say that all super heros are gay. But how is it possible for Gigantor to be gay, huh? Are you saying he was gay for Little Jimmy Sparks? And, if so, are you further saying that Jimmy's dad programmed Gigantor to be gay for his only son???

Supervillian Dr Doom was definately not a sword swallower. I mean he was slipping Sue Storm the Vienna sausage for a long time. Or maybe the Latverian sausage. I mean she only settled on the Elastic man because his tongue was elastic too if you know what I mean.

He enjoyed raping and pillage old school style when he hung out with his fellow supervillian despots like Hugo Chavez and Kim Il-Sung. Now that they are gone he is going to have to find new friends.

I don't have a strong bias for or against gays or Mormons. If gays want to get married or Mormons want to practice polygamy, fine by me, as long as no government compulsion is used to force my church or clergyman to perform the services.

I see this comic book issue as a purely free-market battle of ideas and competing free speech arguments. The homos are perfectly free to boycott and speak out against this guy, and Mormons or homo-haters or sci fi fans are quite free to respond with their own free speech and "buycott".

As a non-reader of comic books, i say that until someone can show me where government force is being used to stifle someone's freedom of religion or freedom of speech, this is none of my damn business.